FI5KE,J. 


Connecticut  « Part  in  the 

FeDEFUNL  CoN^TlTVTION 


-'A  ■--■ 

'M<- 


5 


1-^7 


Irmi-  ^ ■ »-■ 


w?spi 


■■' -ft; 


i?^^fl  - 
■ 


j'' 


i^‘V77.-.7& 
■li.T-"4S 


py^ 


'ii#S'i7S'J 


CONNECTICUT’S  PART  IN  THE 
FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION 

By  JOHN  FIS  HE 


CONNECTICUT’S  PART  IN  THE 
FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION 


By  JOHN  FISKE 


One  of  a Course  of  Historical  Lectures  given 
under  the  auspices  of  Ruth  Wyllys 
Chapter,  Daughters  of  the 
American  Revolution 


HARTFORD,  CONN. 

Printed  by  W.  H.  BARNARD,  154  Pearl  Street 
1901 


f 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1901, 

By  JOHN  FISKE, 

In  the  Office  of  the  librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


21575 


Connecticut  and  the  Federal  Constitution. 


I^ADiEs  AND  Gentlemen  : 

The  subject  to  which  I would  invite  your  attention 
today  is  the  state  of  Connecticut  in  its  relation  to  the  first 
beginnings  and  final  establishment  of  Federal  government 
in  America.  The  subject  is  one  which  until  recently  has 
attracted  little  attention  ; and  this  is  only  one  among  many 
instances  of  the  fact  that  a really  intelligent  and  fruitful 
study  of  American  history  is  only  an  affair  of  yesterday. 
It  is  surprising  to  think  how  little  attention  was  paid  to  the 
subject  half  a century  ago.  I believe  that,  as  schoolboys, 
we  did  learn  something  about  some  of  the  battles  in  the 
War  of  Independence  and  two  or  three  of  the  sea  fights  of 
the  years  1812-15  ; but  our  knowledge  of  earlier  times  was 
limited  to  dim  notions  about  Captain  John  Smith  and  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers,  while  now  and  then  perhaps  there  flitted 
across  our  minds  the  figures  of  Putnam  and  the  wolf  or 
a witch  or  two  swinging  from  the  gallows  in  Salem  village, 
or  the  painted  Indians  rushing  with  wild  war  whoop  into 
Schenectady.  Small  pains  were  taken  to  teach  us  the  signifi- 
cance of  things  that  had  happened  at  our  very  doors.  I 
was  myself  a native  of  Hartford,  yet  long  after  Plymouth 
Rock  had  come  to  mean  something  to  me,  the  names  of 
Thomas  Hooker  and  Samuel  Stone  fell  upon  my  ears  as 


4 


mere  empty  sound.  Much  as  we  were  given  to  bragging,  in 
Fourth  of  July  speeches,  on  our  fine  and  mighty  qualities, 
we  were  modestly  unconscious  of  the  fact  that  some  of  our 
early  worthies  were  personages  as  interesting  and  memora- 
ble as  their  brethren  who  fought  the  Lord’s  battles  under 
Cromwell.  In  those  days  when  our  great  historian,  Francis 
Parkman,  pubhshed  his  first  work,  the  fascinating  book 
which  described  the  Conspiracy  of  Pontiac,  the  greater  part 
of  the  first  edition  lay  for  years  untouched  on  the  publish- 
ers’ shelves,  and  one  of  the  author’s  friends  said  to  him, 
“ Parkman,  why  don’t  you  take  some  European  subject, — 
something  that  people  will  be  interested  in?  Why  don’t 
you  write  about  the  times  of  Michael  Angelo  or  the  Wars 
of  the  Roses  or  the  age  of  Louis  XIV  ? Nobody  cares  to 
read  about  what  happened  out  here  in  the  woods  a hundred 
years  ago.”  Parkman’ s reply  was  Hke  Luther’s  on  a 
greater  occasion,  “I  do  what  I do  because  I cannot  do 
otherwise.”  That  was,  of  course,  the  answer  of  the  in- 
spired man  marked  out  by  destiny  for  a needed  work.  An 
incident  which  occurred  in  my  own  experience  more  than 
twenty  years  ago  has  not  yet  lost  for  me  its  ludicrous  flavor. 
A gentleman  in  a small  New  England  town  was  asked  if 
some  lectures  of  mine  on  “America’s  Place  in  History” 
would  be  hkely  to  find  a good  audience  there.  He  reflected 
for  a moment,  then  shook  his  head  gravely : ‘ ‘ The 

subject,”  said  he,  “is  one  which  would  interest  very  few 
people.  ’ ’ In  the  state  of  mind  thus  indicated  there  is  some- 
thing so  bewildering  that  I beheve  I have  not  yet  recovered 
from  it. 

During  the  past  twenty  years,  however,  the  interest  in 
American  history  has  been  at  once  increasing  and  growing 
enlightened.  Every  year  finds  a greater  number  of  people 
directing  their  attention  to  the  subject  and  directing  it  in  a 
more  intelligent  way.  Twenty  years  ago  the  Johns  Hopkins 
University  set  the  example  of  pubhshing  a monthly  series 


5 


of  pamphlets  setting  forth  the  results  of  special  research 
upon  topics  that  had  either  escaped  attention  or  been  very 
inadequately  treated.  One  paper  would  discuss  the  functions 
of  constables  in  New  England  in  the  early  days ; another 
would  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the  piracy  that  infested  our 
coasts  at  the  end  of  the  17  th  century  ; another  would  make 
the  history  of  town  and  county  government  in  Illinois  as 
absorbing  as  a novel ; another  would  treat  of  old  Maryland 
manors,  another  of  the  influence  of  Quakers  upon  anti- 
slavery sentiment  in  North  Carolina,  and  so  on.  Many 
of  the  writers  of  these  papers,  trained  in  the  best  methods 
of  historical  study,  have  become  professors  of  history  in 
our  colleges  from  one  end  of  the  Union  to  the  other  and  are 
sowing  good  seed  where  they  go  ; while  other  colleges  have 
begun  to  follow  the  example  thus  set.  From  Harvard  and 
Columbia  and  the  Universities  of  Wisconsin  and  Nebraska 
come  especially  notable  contributions  to  our  study  each 
year.  In  Kentucky  a Filson  Club  investigates  the  early 
overflow  of  our  population  across  the  Alleghanies  ; in  Mil- 
waukee a Parkman  Club  discusses  questions  raised  by  the 
books  of  that  great  writer,  while  books  long  forgotten  or 
never  before  printed  are  now  made  generally  accessible. 
Thus  the  Putnams  of  New  York  are  bringing  out  ably 
edited  sets  of  the  writings  of  the  men  who  founded  this 
republic.  Thus  Dr.  Coues  has  clothed  with  fresh  life  the 
journals  and  letters  of  the  great  explorers  who  opened  up 
our  Pacific  country,  while  a crowning  achievement  has  been 
the  publication  in  Cleveland,  Ohio,  of  the  seventy-three 
volumes  of  Jesuit  Relations  written  during  two  centuries 
by  missionaries  in  North  America  to  their  superiors  in 
France  or  Italy.  Such  things  speak  eloquently  of  the 
change  that  has  come  over  us.  They  show  that  while  we 
can  still  draw  lessons  from  the  Roman  Forum  and  the 
Frankish  Field-of-March,  we  have  awakened  to  the  fact  that 
the  New  England  town  meeting  also  has  its  historic  lessons. 


6 


Now  when  we  come  to  the  early  history  of  Connecticut 
and  consider  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  founded 
we  are  soon  impressed  with  the  unusual  significance  and 
importance  of  every  step  in  the  story.  We  are  soon 
brought  to  see  that  the  secession  of  the  three  river  towns 
from  Massachusetts  was  an  event  no  less  memorable  than 
the  voyage  of  the  Mayflower  or  the  arrival  of  Winthrop’s 
great  colony  in  Massachusetts  Bay.  In  order  to  appreciate 
its  significance,  we  may  begin  by  pointing  out  one  very 
marked  and  noticeable  peculiarity  of  the  early  arrangement 
and  distribution  of  population  in  New  England.  It  formed 
a great  contrast  to  what  occurred  in  Virginia.  The  decisive 
circumstance  which  insured  the  success  of  the  Virginia 
colony  after  its  early  period  of  distress  sometimes  reaching 
despair,  was  the  growing  European  demand  for  tobacco. 
The  commercial  basis  of  Old  Virginia’s  existence  was  the 
exportation  of  tobacco  raised  upon  large  estates  along  the 
bank  of  the  James  and  neighboring  rivers.  Now  we  find 
that  colony  growing  steadily  inland  in  a compact  mass  pre- 
senting a united  front  against  the  wilderness  and  its  deni- 
zens. We  do  not  find  a few  settlements  on  James  river,  a 
few  on  the  Rappahannock,  and  another  group  perhaps  at 
Eynchburg,  quite  out  of  military  supporting  distance  of 
each  other ; in  other  words,  we  do  not  find  a group  of  dis- 
tinct communities,  but  we  find  one  little  state,  the  further 
development  of  which  might  make  a great  state,  as  it  did, 
but  could  never  make  a federation  of  states.  If  we  look  at 
such  a colony  as  Pennsylvania,  where  church  and  state  were 
from  the  outset  completely  separated,  quite  as  much  as  in 
Rhode  Island,  we  find  a similar  compactness  of  growth  ; 
we  find  the  colony  presenting  to  the  wilderness  a solid  front. 
If  we  next  consider  New  Netherland  we  notice  a slight 
difference.  There  we  find  a compact  colony  with  its  centre 
on  Manhattan  Island,  and  far  up  the  river  another  settle- 
ment at  Albany  quite  beyond  easy  supporting  distance  and 


7 


apparently  exposed  to  all  the  perils  of  the  wilderness. 
But  this  settlement  of  Albany  is  readily  explained,  for  there 
was  the  powerful  incentive  of  the  rich  fur  trade,  while  the 
perils  of  the  wilderness  were  in  great  measure  ehminated 
by  the  firm  alliance  between  Dutchmen  and  Mohawks. 

Now  when  we  come  to  the  settlement  of  New  England 
we  find  things  going  very  differently.  Had  the  Puritan 
settlers  behaved  like  most  other  colonists,  their  little  state, 
beginning  on  the  shores  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  would  have 
grown  steadily  and  compactly  westward,  pushing  the 
Indians  before  it.  First,  it  would  have  brushed  away  the 
Wampanoags  and  Naticks ; then  the  Narragansetts  and 
Nipmucks  would  have  succumbed  to  them,  and  in  due 
course  of  time  they  would  have  reached  the  country  of  the 
Pequots  and  Mohegans.  That  would  have  been  Hke  the 
growth  of  Virginia.  It  would  have  been  a colonial  growth 
of  the  ordinary  type  and  it  would  have  resulted  in  a single 
New  England  'state,  not  in  a group  bearing  that  name. 
Very  different  from  this  was  the  actual  course  of  events. 
Instead  of  this  solid  growth,  we  find  within  the  first  ten 
years  after  Winthrop’s  arrival  in  Massachusetts  Bay  that 
while  his  colony  was  still  in  the  weakness  of  infancy,  even 
while  its  chief  poverty,  as  John  Cotton  said,  was  poverty  in 
men,  the  new  arrivals  instead  of  reinforcing  it,  marched  off 
into  the  wilderness,  heedless  of  danger,  and  formed  new 
colonies  for  themselves.  This  phenomenon  is  so  singular 
as  to  demand  explanation,  and  the  explanation  is  not  far  to 
seek.  We  shall  find  it  in  the  guiding  purpose  which  led 
the  Puritans  of  that  day  to  cross  the  ocean  in  quest  of  new 
homes. 

What  was  that  guiding  purpose  ? This  is  a subject  upon 
which  cheap  moralizing  has  abounded.  We  have  been  told 
that  the  Puritans  came  to  New  England  in  search  of 
religious  liberty,  and  that  with  reprehensible  want  of  con- 
sistency, they  proceeded  to  trample  upon  religious  liberty 


8 


as  ruthlessly  as  any  of  the  churches  that  had  been  left 
behind  in  the  old  world.  We  often  hear  it  said  that  Mrs. 
Hemans  labored  under  a fond  delusion  when  she  wrote 

‘ ‘ They  have  left  unstained  what  there  they  found, 

Freedom  to  worship  God.” 

By  no  means  ! cry  the  modem  critics  of  the  Puritans ; 
their  record  in  respect  of  religious  freedom  was  as  far  as 
possible  from  stainless.  From  much  of  the  modern  writing 
on  this  well-worn  theme  one  would  almost  suppose  that 
religious  bigotry  had  never  existed  in  the  world  until  the 
settlement  of  New  England ; one  would  almost  be  led  to 
fancy  that  racks  and  thumb  screws  and  the  stake  had  never 
been  heard  of. 

Now  the  difldculty  with  this  sort  of  historic  criticism  is, 
that  it  deals  too  much  in  vague  generalities  and  quite  over- 
looks the  fact  that  there  were  Puritans  and  Puritans,  that 
the  God-fearing  men  of  that  stripe  were  not  all  cast  in  the 
same  mould,  like  Professor  Clerk  Maxwell’s  atoms.  I have 
more  than  once  heard  people  allude  to  the  restriction  of  the 
suffrage  to  church  members  in  the  early  days  of  Massachu- 
setts and  Co7inecticut^  which  is  very  much  as  if  one  were  to 
make  statements  about  the  despotic  government  of  Czar 
Nicholas  and  Queen  Victoria.  Still  more  frequently  do 
people  confound  the  men  of  Plymouth  with  the  very  differ- 
ent company  that  founded  Boston.  As  to  Mrs.  Hemans, 
her  remark  was  not  so  very  far  from  the  truth  if  restricted 
to  the  colony  of  the  Pilgrims,  about  which  she  was  writing. 
On  the  whole,  the  purpose  of  that  little  band  of  Pilgrims 
was  to  secure  freedom  to  worship  after  their  own  fashion, 
and  similar  freedom  they  were  measurably  ready  to  accord 
to  those  who  came  among  them.  They  had  witnessed  in 
Holland  the  good  effects  of  religious  liberty,  and  their  atti- 
tude of  mind  was  largely  determined  by  the  strong  personal 
qualities  of  such  men  as  John  Robinson,  William  Bradford 


9 


and  Kdward  Winslow,  who  were  all  noted  for  breadth, 
gentleness  and  tact.  The  record  of  Plymouth  is  not  quite 
unstained  by  persecution,  but  it  is  an  eminently  good  one 
for  the  17  th  century ; the  cases  are  few  and  by  no  means 
flagrant. 

With  the  colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay  the  circumstances 
were  entirely  different.  That  colony  was  at  the  outset  a 
commercial  company,  hke  the  great  company  which  founded 
Virginia  and  afterward  had  such  an  interesting  struggle 
with  James  I.,  ending  in  the  loss  of  the  Virginia  Company’s 
charter  and  its  destruction  as  a political  body.  This  fate 
served  as  a warning  five  years  later  to  the  Massachusetts 
Bay  Company.  Instead  of  staying  in  Tondon  where  hostile 
courts  and  the  means  of  enforcing  their  hostile  decrees  were 
too  near  at  hand,  they  decided  to  carry  their  charter  across 
the  ocean  and  carry  out  their  cherished  purposes  as  far 
removed  as  possible  from  interference.  Their  commercial 
aims  were  but  a cloak  to  cover  the  purpose  they  had  most 
at  heart,  a purpose  which  could  not  be  avowed  by  any  party 
of  men  seeking  for  a royal  charter.  Their  purpose  was  to 
found  a theocratic  commonwealth,  like  that  of  the  children 
of  Israel  in  the  good  old  days  before  their  froward  hearts 
conceived  the  desire  for  a king.  There  was  no  thought  of 
throwing  off  allegiance  to  the  British  Crown ; but  saving 
such  allegiance,  their  purpose  was  to  build  up  a theocratic 
society  according  to  their  own  notions,  and  not  for  one 
moment  did  they  propose  to  tolerate  among  them  any  per- 
sons whom  they  deemed  unfit  or  unwilling  to  co-operate  with 
them  in  their  scheme.  As  for  rehgious  toleration,  they 
scouted  the  very  idea  of  the  thing.  There  was  no  imputa- 
tion which  they  resented  more  warmly  than  the  imputation 
of  treating  heretics  cordially,  as  they  were  treated  in  the 
Netherlands.  The  writings  of  Massachusetts  men  in  the 
17th  century  leave  no  possibility  of  doubt  on  this  point. 
John  Cotton  was  not  a man  of  persecuting  temperament, 


lO 


but  of  religious  liberty  be  had  a very  one-sided  conception. 
According  to  Cotton,  it  is  wrong  for  error  to  persecute  truth, 
but  it  is  the  sacred  duty  of  truth  to  persecute  error.  Which 
reminds  one  of  the  Hottentot  chief’s  fine  ethical  distinction 
between  right  and  wrong:  — “Wrong  is  when  somebody 
runs  off  with  my  wife ; right  is  when  I run  off  with  some 
other  fellow’s  wife.”  As  for  Nathaniel  Ward,  the  “ Simple 
Cobbler  of  Agawam,”  he  tells  us  that  there  are  people  in  the 
world  who  say,  ‘ ‘ that  men  ought  to  have  liberty  of  their 
conscience,  and  that  it  is  persecution  to  debar  them  of  it.  ’ ’ 
And  what  answer  has  the  Simple  Cobbler  to  make  ? He  is 
for  the  moment  struck  dumb.  He  declares  ‘ ‘ I can  rather 
stand  amazed  than  reply  to  this ; it  is  an  astonishment  to 
think  that  the  brains  of  men  should  be  parboiled  in  such 
impious  ignorance  ; let  all  the  wits  under  the  heavens  lay 
their  heads  together  and  find  an  assertion  worse  than  this 

and  I will  petition  to  be  chosen  the  universal  idiot 

of  the  world.  ’ ’ The  reverend  gentleman  who  writes  in  this 
pungent  style  was  the  person  who  drew  up  the  first  code 
adopted  in  Massachusetts,  the  code  which  is  known  as  its 
‘ ‘ Body  of  Liberties.  ’ ’ One  and  all,  these  men  who  shaped 
the  policy  of  Massachusetts  would  have  echoed  with  ap- 
proval the  sentiment  of  the  Scottish  divine,  Rutherford, 
who  declared  that  toleration  of  all  religions  is  not  far 
removed  from  blasphemy.  Holding  such  opinions,  they 
resented  the  imputation  of  tolerance  in  much  the  same 
spirit  as  that  in  which  most  members  of  the  Republican 
party  in  the  years  just  preceding  our  Civil  War  resented 
the  imputation  of  being  Abolitionists. 

While  the  founders  of  Massachusetts  thus  stoutly  op- 
posed religious  liberty  their  opinions  did  not  bear  their 
worst  fruits  until  after  the  middle  of  the  century,  when 
men  of  persecuting  temperament  like  Norton  and  Endicott 
acquired  control.  In  the  earher  years  the  fiery  zeal  of  such 
men  as  Wilson  and  Dudley  was  tempered  by  the  fine  tact 


II 


and  moderation  of  Wintlirop  and  Cotton.  Winthrop’s 
view  of  such  matters  'was  interesting  and  suggestive.  In 
substance  it  was  as  follows  : Here  we  are  in  the  wilderness, 
a band  of  exiles  who  have  given  up  all  the  comforts  of  our 
old  homes,  all  the  tender  associations  of  the  land  we  love 
best,  in  order  to  found  a state  according  to  a preconceived 
ideal  in  which  most  of  us  agree.  We  believe  it  to  be  im- 
portant that  the  members  of  a Christian  commonwealth 
should  all  hold  the  same  opinions  regarding  essentials,  and 
of  course  it  is  for  us  to  determine  what  are  essentials.  If 
people  who  have  come  here  with  us  hold  different  views 
they  have  made  a great  mistake  and  had  better  go  back  to 
England.  But  if,  holding  different  views,  they  still  wish  to 
remain  in  America,  let  them  leave  us  in  peace,  and  going 
elsewhere,  found  communities  according  to  their  concep- 
tions of  what  is  best.  We  do  not  wish  to  quarrel  with  them, 
but  we  tell  them  plainly  that  they  cannot  stay  here.  Is 
there  not,  in  this  vast  wilderness,  enough  elbow  room  for 
many  God-fearing  communities  ? 

It  was  in  accordance  with  this  policy  that  when  the  first 
Congregational  church  was  organized  at  Salem,  two  gentle- 
men who  disapproved  of  the  proceedings  were  sent  on  board 
ship  and  carried  back  to  England.  And  again,  when  pro- 
found offence  had  been  taken  at  certain  things  said  by  Roger 
Williams  and  there  was  some  talk  of  sending  him  to 
England,  he  was  privately  notified  by  Winthrop  that  if  he 
would  retire  to  some  place  beyond  the  Company’s  juris- 
diction, such  as  Narragansett  Bay,  he  need  not  fear  molesta- 
tion. This  was  virtually  banishment,  though  not  so  sharp 
and  harsh  as  that  which  -was  visited  upon  Mrs.  Hutchinson 
and  her  friends  after  their  conviction  of  heresy  by  a tribu- 
nal sitting  in  what  is  now  Cambridge.  Some  of  these 
heretics  led  by  John  Wheelwright  went  northward  to  the 
Piscataqua  country.  At  the  mouth  of  that  romantic  stream 
the  Episcopal  followers  of  Mason  and  Gorges  had  lately 


12 


founded  the  town  of  Portsmouth,  and  Wheelwright’s 
people,  in  settling  Exeter  and  Hampton,  found  these  Episco- 
palians much  pleasanter  neighbors  than  they  had  left  in 
Boston.  As  for  Mrs.  Hutchinson  and  her  remaining  friends, 
they  found  new  homes  upon  Rhode  Island.  A few  years 
later  that  eccentric  agitator,  Samuel  Gorton,  whom  neither 
Plymouth  nor  even  Providence  nor  Rhode  Island  could 
endure,  bought  land  for  himself  on  the  western  shore  of 
Narragansett  Bay  and  made  the  beginnings  of  Warwick. 

From  these  examples  we  see  that  the  principal  cause  of 
the  scattering  of  New  England  settlers  in  communities 
somewhat  remote  from  each  other  was  inability  to  agree  on 
sundry  questions  pertaining  to  religion.  It  should  be 
observed  in  passing  that  their  differences  of  opinion  seldom 
related  to  points  of  doctrine,  but  almost  always  to  points  of 
church  government  or  religious  discipline.  For  the  most 
part,  they  were  questions  on  the  borderland  between 
theology  and  politics.  Between  the  settlements  here  men- 
tioned the  differences  were  strongly  marked.  While 
Winthrop’s  followers  insisted  upon  the  union  of  church 
and  state,  those  of  Roger  Williams  insisted  upon  their  com- 
plete separation.  The  divergences  of  the  New  Hampshire 
people  and  those  of  the  Newport  colony  had  somewhat 
more  of  a doctrinal  complexion,  being  implicated  with 
sundry  speculations  as  to  salvation  by  grace  and  salvation 
by  works.  These  examples  have  prepared  us  to  understand 
the  case  of  Connecticut.  The  secession  which  gave  rise  to 
Connecticut  was  attended  by  no  such  stormy  scenes  as  were 
witnessed  at  the  banishment  of  Wheelwright  and  Mrs. 
Hutchinson,  yet  it  included  a greater  number  of  elements 
of  historic  significance  and  was  in  many  ways  the  most 
important  and  remarkable  of  the  instances  of  segmentation 
which  occurred  in  early  New  England. 

When  the  charter  of  the  Massachusetts  Company  was 
brought  to  the  western  shore  of  the  Atlantic  the  mere  fact 


13 


of  separation  from  England  sufficed  to  transmute  the  com- 
mercial corporation  into  a self-governing  republic.  The 
Company  had  its  governor,  its  deputy-governor  and  its 
council  of  eighteen  assistants,  as  was  commonly  the  case 
with  commercial  joint  stock  companies.  In  Eondon  this 
governing  board  would  have  exercised  almost  autocratic 
control  over  the  transactions  of  the  company,  although 
politically  it  would  have  remained  a body  unknown  to  law, 
however  much  influence  it  might  have  exerted.  But  on 
American  soil  the  Company  at  once  became  a political 
body,  and  its  governor,  deputy-governor  and  assistants 
became  the  ruling  head  of  a small  republic  consisting  of 
the  Company’s  settlers  in  Salem,  Charlestown,  Boston, 
Roxbury,  Dorchester,  Watertown,  and  a little  group  of 
houses  halfway  between  Watertown  and  Boston  and  known 
for  a while  simply  as  the  New  Town.  This  designation 
indicated  its  comparative  youth ; it  was  about  a year 
younger  than  its  sister  towns  ! Nothing  was  said  in  the 
charter  about  a popular  representative  assembly,  and  at 
first  the  government  did  not  feel  the  need  of  one.  They 
were  men  of  strong  characters,  who  knew  what  they 
wanted  and  intended  to  have  it.  They  had  selected  the 
New  Town  for  a seat  of  government,  since  it  was  sornewhat 
less  exposed  to  destruction  from  a British  fleet  than  Boston  ; 
and  these  men  were  doing  things  well  calculated  to  arouse 
the  ire  of  King  Charles.  They  felt  themselves  quite  com- 
petent to  sit  in  the  New  Town  and  make  laws  which  should 
be  binding  upon  all  the  neighboring  settlements.  But  they 
soon  received  a reminder  that  such  was  not  the  way  in 
which  freeborn  Englishmen  like  to  be  treated.  In  1631  the 
governor,  deputy-governor  and  assistants  decided  that  on 
its  western  side  the  New  Town  was  too  much  exposed  to 
attacks  from  Indians.  Accordingly,  it  was  voted  that  a 
palisade  should  be  built  extending  about  half  a mile  inland 
from  Charles  river  and  a tax  was  assessed  upon  the  towns 


to  meet  tlie  expense  of  this  fortification.  The  men  of 
Watertown  flatly  refused  to  pay  their  share  of  this  tax 
because  they  were  not  represented  in  the  body  which  im- 
posed it.  These  proceedings  were  followed  by  a great 
primary  assembly  of  all  the  settlers  competent  to  vote  and 
it  was  decided  that  hereafter  each  town  should  send  repre- 
sentatives to  a general  assembly  the  assent  of  which  should 
be  necessary  to  all  the  acts  of  the  governor  and  his  council. 
Thus  was  inaugurated  the  second  free  republican  govern- 
ment in  America,  the  first  having  been  inaugurated  in 
Virginia  thirteen  years  before,  and  both  having  been  copied 
from  the  county  government  of  England  in  the  old  English 
county  court. 

The  protest  of  the  Watertown  men  gave  expression  to  a 
feeling  that  had  many  sympathizers  in  Dorchester  and  the 
New  Town.  For  some  reason  these  three  towns  happened 
to  contain  a considerable  proportion  of  persons  not  fully  in 
sympathy  with  the  aims  of  Winthrop  and  Cotton  and  the 
other  great  leaders  of  the  Puritan  exodus.  In  the  theo- 
cratic state  which  these  leaders  were  attempting  to  found, 
one  of  the  corner-stones,  perhaps  the  chiefest  corner-stone, 
was  the  restriction  of  the  rights  of  voting  and  holding  civil 
office  to  members  of  the  Congregational  Church  qualified 
for  participation  in  the  Eord’s  Supper.  The  ruling  party  in 
Massachusetts  Bay  believed  that  this  restriction  was  neces- 
sary in  order  to  guard  against  hidden  foes  and  to  assure 
sufficient  power  to  the  clergy ; but  there  were  some  who 
felt  that  the  restriction  would  give  to  the  clergy  more  power 
than  was  likely  to  be  wisely  used,  and  that  its  tendency  was 
distinctly  aristocratic.  The  minority  which  held  these 
democratic  views  was  more  strongly  represented  in  Dor- 
chester, Watertown  and  the  New  Town  than  elsewhere. 
Here,  too,  the  jealousy  of  encroachments  upon  local  self- 
government  was  especially  strong,  as  illustrated  in  the  pro- 
test of  Watertown  above  mentioned.  It  is  also  a significant 


15 


fact  that  in  1633  Watertown  and  Dorchester  led  the  way  in 
instituting  town  government  by  Selectmen. 

In  September,  1633,  there  arrived  upon  the  scene 
several  interesting  men,  three  of  whom  call  for  special  men- 
tion. These  were  John  Haynes,  Samuel  Stone  and  Thomas 
Hooker.  Haynes  was  born  in  Copford  Hall,  Essex,  but  the 
date  of  his  birth  is  unknown,  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  the 
details  of  his  early  life.  He  is  now  remembered  as  the  first 
governor  of  Connecticut  and  as  having  serv^ed  in  that  ca- 
pacity every  alternate  year  until  his  death.  He  has  been 
described  as  a man  ‘ ‘ of  large  estate  and  larger  affections ; of 
heavenly  mind  and  spotless  life,  sagacious,  accurate,  and  dear 
to  the  people  by  his  benevolent  virtues  and  disinterested  con- 
duct.” Samuel  Stone  was  born  in  Hertford  in  1602  and  was 
graduated  at  Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge,  in  1627,  being 
already  known  as  a shrewd  and  tough  controversialist, 
abounding  in  genial  humor  and  sometimes  sparkling  with 
wit.  Thomas  Hooker  was  an  older  man,  having  been  born 
in  Markfield,  Leicestershire,  in  1 586.  He  was  graduated  at 
Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge,  and  afterward  became  a 
Fellow  of  that  College.  In  1626  he  was  appointed  assistant 
to  a clergyman  in  Chelmsford  and  preached  there,  but  in 
1630  was  forbidden  to  preach  by  Archbishop  Laud.  For  a 
while  Hooker  stayed  in  his  home  near  Chelmsford  and 
taught  a school  in  Little  Braddon,  where  he  had  for  an 
assistant  teacher  John  Eliot,  afterward  famous  as  the  apostle 
to  the  Indians.  This  lasted  but  a few  months.  Things 
were  made  so  disagreeable  for  Hooker  that  before  the  end  of 
1630  he  made  his  way  to  Holland  and  stayed  there  until 
1633,  preaching  in  Rotterdam  and  Delft.  At  length,  in  the 
summer  of  1633,  he  decided  to  go  to  New  England  and 
sailed  in  the  good  ship  Grifiin.  In  the  same  ship  came 
Haynes  and  Stone,  and  upon  their  arrival  in  Massachusetts 
Bay  all  three  established  themselves  at  the  New  Town,  which 
was  soon  to  be  called  Cambridge.  In  the  preceding  year  a 


i6 


congregation  from  Braintree  in  Essex  had  come  over  to 
Massachusetts  and  begun  to  settle  near  Mount  Wollaston 
where  they  left  the  name  of  Braintree  on  the  map,  but 
presently  they  removed  to  the  New  Town  where  their 
accession  raised  the  population  to  something  like  500  souls. 
Hooker,  upon  his  arrival,  was  chosen  pastor  and  Stone  was 
chosen  teacher  of  the  New  Town  church. 

During  the  ensuing  year  expressions  of  dissent  from  the 
prevailing  policy  began  to  be  heard  more  distinctly  than 
before  in  the  New  Town.  Among  the  questions  which  then 
agitated  the  community  was  one  which  concerned  the  form 
which  legislation  should  take.  Many  of  the  people  ex- 
pressed a wish  that  a code  of  laws  might  be  drawn  up, 
inasmuch  as  they  naturally  wished  to  know  what  was  to  be 
expected  of  law-abiding  citizens ; but  the  general  disposi- 
tion of  the  ministers  was  to  withstand  such  requests  and  to 
keep  things  undecided  until  a body  of  law  should  grow  up 
through  the  decisions  of  courts  in  which  the  ministers  them- 
selves played  a leading  part.  The  controversy  over  this  ques- 
tion was  kept  up  until  1647,  when  the  popular  party,  if  we 
may  so  call  it,  carried  the  day,  and  caused  a code  of  lav/  to 
be  framed.  This  code,  of  which  Nathaniel  Ward  was  the 
draughtsman,  was  known  as  the  Body  of  Eiberties.  In  all 
this  prolonged  discussion  the  representative  assembly  was 
more  or  less  opposed  by  the  council  of  assistants.  In  short, 
there  was  a very  clear  division  in  Massachusetts  between 
what  we  may  call  the  aristocratic  and  democratic  parties. 
Perhaps  it  would  also  be  correct  to  distinguish  them  as  the 
theocratic  and  secular  parties.  On  the  one  side  were  the 
clergymen  and  aristocrats  who  wished  to  make  political 
power  the  monopoly  of  a few,  while  on  the  other  hand,  a 
considerable  minority  of  the  people  wished  to  secularize  the 
politics  of  the  community  and  place  it  upon  a broader  basis. 
The  foremost  spokesmen  of  these  two  parties  were  the  two 
great  ministers,  John  Cotton  and  Thomas  Hooker.  Both 


17 


were  men  of  force,  sagacity,  tact,  and  learning.  They  were 
probably  the  two  most  powerful  intellects  to  be  found  on 
Massachusetts  Bay.  Their  opinions  were  clearly  expressed. 
Hooker  said : “In  matters  of  greater  consequence,  which 
concern  the  common  good,  a general  council,  chosen 
by  all,  to  transact  businesses  which  concern  all,  I con- 
ceive, under  favor,  most  suitable  to  rule  and  most  safe 
for  relief  of  the  whole.  ’ ’ Here  we  have  one  of  the  funda- 
mental theorems  of  democracy  stated  in  admirably  temper- 
ate language.  On  the  other  hand.  Cotton  said  : ‘ ‘ Demo- 
cracy I do  not  conceive  that  ever  God  did  ordain  as  a fit 
government  either  for  church  or  commonwealth.  ’ ’ Hooker 
also  had  more  or  less  discussion  with  Winthrop,  in  which  it 
appeared  that  the  ideal  of  the  former  was  government  of 
the  people  by  the  people,  while  that  of  the  latter  was  gov- 
ernment of  the  people  by  a selected  few. 

Among  the  principal  adherents  of  Hooker  were  John 
Warham,  the  pastor,  and  John  Maverick,  the  teacher,  of 
Dorchester,  both  of  them  natives  of  Bxeter  in  Devonshire. 
There  was  also  George  Phillips,  a graduate  of  Cambridge, 
who  had  since  1630  been  pastor  of  the  church  at  Water- 
town.  Another  adherent  was  Roger  Tudlow  of  Dorchester, 
a brother-in-law  of  Bndicott.  Btidlow  had  been  trained  for 
the  bar  and  was  one  of  the  most  acute  and  learned  of  the 
Puritan  settlers.  The  vicissitudes  of  his  life  might  perhaps 
raise  a suspicion  that  wherever  there  was  a government,  he 
was  ‘ ‘ agin  it.  ’ ’ At  all  events,  he  was  conspicuous  in 
opposition  at  the  time  of  which  we  are  speaking. 

By  1635  many  reports  had  come  to  Boston  of  the  beauti- 
ful smiling  fields  along  the  Connecticut  river.  Attention 
had  been  called  to  the  site  of  Hartford  because  here  the  Dutch 
had  built  a rude  block  house  and  exchanged  defiances  with 
boats  from  Plymouth  coming  up  the  river.  At  the  river’s 
mouth  the  Saybrook  fort,  lately  founded,  served  to  cut  off 
the  Dutch  fortress  of  Good  Hope  from  its  supports  on  the 


i8 


Hudson  river,  and  all  the  rest  of  what  is  now  Connecticut 
was  rough  and  shaggy  woodland.  All  at  once  it  appeared 
that  in  the  congregations  of  Dorchester,  Watertown  and  the 
New  Town,  a strong  desire  had  sprung  up  of  migrating  to 
the  banks  of  the  Connecticut.  There  was  no  unseemly 
controversy,  as  in  the  cases  of  Roger  Williams  and  Mrs. 
Hutchinson.  This  case  was  not  parallel  to  theirs,  for 
Hooker  was  no  heresiarch  and  Massachusetts  was  most 
anxious  to  keep  him  and  his  friends.  To  lose  three  large 
congregations  would  but  aggravate  its  complaint  of  poverty 
in  men.  Moreover,  antagonists  like  Hooker  and  Cotton 
knew  how  to  be  courteous.  When  the  discontented  congre- 
gations petitioned  the  General  Court  for  leave  to  withdraw 
from  the  neighborhood,  the  reasons  which  they  alleged 
were  so  ludicrous  as  to  make  it  plain  that  they  were  merely 
set  forth  as  pretexts  to  do  duty  instead  of  the  real  reasons. 
It  was  alleged,  for  example,  that  they  had  not  room  enough 
to  pasture  their  cattle.  The  men  who  said  this  must  have 
had  to  hold  their  sides  to  keep  from  bursting  with  laughter. 
Not  enough  room  in  Cambridge  for  500  people  to  feed  their 
cattle  ! Why,  then,  did  they  not  simply  send  a swarm  into 
the  adjacent  territory, — into  what  was  by  and  by  to  be  par- 
celled out  as  Lexington  and  Concord  and  Acton  ? Why  flit 
a hundred  miles  through  the  wilderness  and  seek  an  isolated 
position  open  to  attack  from  many  quarters  ? It  is  impossi- 
ble to  read  the  fragmentary  records  without  seeing  that  the 
weighty  questions  were  kept  back  ; but  there  is  one  telltale 
fact  which  is  worth  reams  of  written  description.  In  the 
state  which  these  men  went  away  and  founded  on  the  banks 
of  our  noble  river  there  was  no  limitation  of  the  suffrage  to 
members  of  the  churches.  In  words  of  perfect  courtesy  the 
ministers  and  magistrates  of  Boston  deprecated  the  removal 
of  a light-giving  candlestick,  but  the  candlestick  could  not 
be  prevailed  upon  to  stay,  and  the  leave  so  persistently 
sought  was  reluctantly  granted. 


19 


A wholesale  migration  ensued.  About  800  persons  made 
their  way  through  the  forest  to  their  new  homes  on  the 
further  bank  of  the  Connecticut  river.  The  Dorchester 
congregation  made  the  settlement  which  they  called  at  first 
by  the  same  name,  but  presently  changed  it  to  Windsor. 
The  men  from  Watertown  built  a new  Watertown  lower 
down,  which  was  presently  rechristened  Wethersfield  ; and 
between  them  the  congregation  from  the  New  Town,  led  by 
its  pastor  and  teacher,  halted  near  the  Dutch  fort  and  called 
their  settlement  Hartford,  after  Stone’s  English  birthplace. 
About  half  of  the  migration  seems  to  have  come  to  Hart- 
ford, and  the  wholesale  character  of  it  may  be  best  appre- 
ciated when  we  learn  that  of  the  500  inhabitants  of  Cam- 
bridge at  the  beginning  of  the  year,  only  50  were  left  at  the 
end  of  it.  Truly,  our  good  city  on  the  Charles  was  well- 
nigh  depopulated.  A great  many  empty  houses  would  have 
been  consigned  to  decay  but  for  one  happy  circumstance. 
Just  as  Hooker’s  people  were  leaving,  a new  congregation 
from  England  was  arriving.  These  were  the  learned 
Thomas  Shepard  and  his  people.  They  needed  homes,  of 
course,  and  the  houses  of  the  seceders  were  to  be  had  at 
reasonable  prices.  I cannot  refrain  from  mentioning,  before 
taking  my  departure  from  this  part  of  the  subject  with  the 
the  seceders,  that  Shepard’s  people  were  much  more  in  har- 
mony with  the  M^sachusetts  theocracy  than  their  prede- 
cessors. Indeed,  when  in  that  very  year  it  was  decided 
that  the  colony  must  have  a college,  it  was  further  decided 
to  place  it  in  the  New  Town  where  its  students  and  pro- 
fessors might  sit  under  the  preaching  of  Mr.  Shepard,  a 
man  so  acute  and  diligent  in  detecting  and  eradicating 
heresy  that  it  could  by  no  possibility  acquire  headway  in  his 
neighborhood.  Thus  Harvard  College  was  founded  by 
graduates  of  the  ancient  university  on  the  Cam ; and  thus 
did  the  New  Town  at  last  acquire  its  name  of  Cambridge. 
But  alas  for  human  foresight.  The  first  president  that 


20 


Harvard  had  was  expelled  from  his  place  for  teaching 
heresy,  being  neither  more  nor  less  than  a disbeliever  in 
the  propriety  of  infant  baptism  ! 

At  first  the  seceders  said  nothing  about  escaping  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  Massachusetts,  and  indeed,  the  permis- 
sion granted  to  the  Watertown  congregation  expressly 
provided  that  in  their  new  home  they  should  remain  a part 
of  that  commonwealth.  What  Hooker  and  his  friends  may 
have  at  first  intended  we  do  not  really  know.  One  thing  is 
clear  : they  waited  until  their  new  homes  were  built  before 
they  took  the  great  question  of  government  in  hand.  At 
about  the  same  time  a party  from  Roxbury  migrated  west- 
ward and  founded  Springfield  higher  up  the  river.  Their 
leader,  William  Pynchon,  was  more  than  once  in  very  bad 
repute  with  the  people  of  Boston  and  some  years  later  he 
published  in  London  a treatise  on  the  Atonement  which  our 
Boston  friends  solemnly  burned  in  the  marketplace  by  order 
of  the  General  Court.  For  a couple  of  years  the  affairs  of 
Windsor,  Hartford  and  Wethersfield  were  managed  by  a 
commission  from  Massachusetts  in  which  William  Pynchon 
and  Roger  Ludlow  were  the  leading  spirits. 

There  was  a difference  in  the  position  of  Springfield  and 
the  three  lower  towns  with  reference  to  the  government  in 
Boston.  The  charter  of  the  Massachusetts  Company 
granted  it  a broad  strip  of  land  running  indefinitely  west- 
ward. With  the  imperfect  geographical  knowledge  of  that 
time  and  in  the  entire  absence  of  surveys,  it  was  possible 
for  Massachusetts  to  claim  Springfield  as  situated  within 
her  original  grant.  No  such  claim,  however,  was  possible 
in  the  case  of  the  three  lower  towns.  Latitude  settled  the 
business  for  them  to  the  satisfaction  of  anybody  who  could 
use  a sextant.  If  they  chose  to  set  up  for  themselves, 
Massachusetts  could  find  no  reasonable  ground  upon  which 
to  oppose  them.  Moreover,  it  was  distinctly  bad  poHcy  for 
Massachusetts  to  be  too  exigent  in  such  a matter,  or  to 


21 


make  the  Connecticut  seceders  her  enemies.  Massachusetts 
was  playing  a part  of  extraordinary  boldness  with  reference 
to  the  British  government.  It  took  all  the  skill  and  re- 
sources of  one  of  the  most  daring  and  sagacious  statesmen 
that  ever  hved  (and  such  John  Winthrop  certainly  was) 
to  steer  that  ship  safely  among  the  breakers  that  threatened 
her,  and  to  quarrel  with  such  worthy  friends  as  the  men  of 
Connecticut,  except  for  some  most  imperative  and  flagrant 
cause,  would  be  the  height  of  folly. 

Thus  left  quite  free  to  act  for  themselves,  the  three  river 
towns  almost  from  the  beginning  behaved  as  an  independent 
community.  In  May,  1637,  ^ legislature  called  a General 
Court  was  assembled  at  Hartford.  A committee  of  three 
from  each  town,  meeting  at  Hartford,  elected  six  magis- 
trates and  administered  to  them  an  oath  of  office.  The 
government  thus  estabhshed  superseded  the  commission 
from  Massachusetts  and  it  is  worth  noting  that  it  derived 
its  authority  directly  from  the  three  towns.  In  the  nine 
deputies  we  have  the  germ  of  the  representative  assembly, 
and  in  the  six  elected  magistrates  we  have  the  analogue  of 
the  Massachusetts  council  of  assistants. 

The  relations  of  the  towns,  however,  needed  better  defl- 
nition,  and  on  the  14th  of  January,  1639,  a convention  met 
at  Hartford  which  framed  and  adopted  a written  constitu- 
tion, creating  the  “commonwealth  of  Connecticut.  The 
name  of  this  written  constitution  was  “The  Fundamental 
Orders  of  Connecticut.  ’ ’ These  Orders,  as  already  observed, 
placed  no  ecclesiastical  restrictions  upon  the  suffrage,  but 
gave  it  to  all  admitted  freemen  who  had  taken  the  oath 
of  fldelity  to  the  commonwealth ; and  lest  there  should  be 
any  doubt  who  were  to  be  regarded  as  admitted  freemen, 
the  General  Court  afterward  declared  that  the  phrase  meant 
all  who  had  been  admitted  by  a town.  From  this  it  appears 
that  in  Connecticut  the  towns  were  the  original  sources  of 
power,  just  as  in  our  great  federal  republic  the  original 


22 


sources  of  power  are  the  states.  It  was  perfectly  well 
understood  that  each  town  was  absolutely  self-governing  in 
all  that  related  to  its  own  local  affairs,  and  that  all  powers 
not  expressly  conferred  upon  the  General  Court  by  these 
Fundamental  Orders  remained  with  the  town.  One  express 
direction  to  the  towns  reminds  one  of  the  provision  in  our 
Federal  Constitution  that  it  shall  guarantee  to  each  state  a 
republican  form  of  government.  In  like  manner  the  Funda- 
mental Orders  provide  that  each  town  shall  choose  a number 
of  its  inhabitants  not  exceeding  seven  to  administer  its 
affairs  from  year  to  year.  With  regard  to  the  General 
Court,  it  was  ordered  that  each  town  should  send  four  depu- 
ties to  represent  it  until  the  number  of  towns  should  so 
increase  that  this  rule  would  make  an  assembly  inconven- 
iently large,  in  which  case  the  number  for  each  town  might 
be  reduced.  The  noticeable  feature  is,  that  the  towns  were 
to  be  equally  represented,  without  regard  to  their  popula- 
tion. This  feature  gives  a distinctly  federal  character  to 
this  remarkable  constitution.  In  the  face  of  this  fact  it 
cannot  well  be  denied  that  the  original  Connecticut  was  a 
federation  of  towns.  A careful  and  detailed  study  of  the 
history  of  the  two  states  would  further  convince  us  that  the 
town  has  always  had  more  importance  in  Connecticut  than 
in  Massachusetts. 

With  regard  to  the  governor,  there  was  to  be  a system  of 
popular  election  without  any  preliminary  nomination.  An 
election  was  to  be  held  each  year  in  the  spring,  at  which 
every  freeman  was  entitled  to  hand  to  the  proper  persons  a 
paper  containing  the  name  of  the  person  whom  he  desired 
for  governor.  The  papers  were  then  counted  and  the  name 
which  was  found  on  the  greatest  number  of  ballots  was 
declared  elected.  Here  we  have  the  popular  election  by  a 
simple  plurality  vote.  As  for  the  six  magistrates,  the 
deputies  from  each  town  in  the  General  Court  might  nomi- 
nate two  candidates,  and  the  Court  as  a whole  might  nomi- 


23 


nate  as  many  more  as  it  liked.  This  nomination  was  not  to 
be  acted  upon  until  the  next  or  some  subsequent  meeting 
of  the  Court.  When  the  time  came  for  choosing  six  the 
secretary  read  the  names  of  the  candidates  and  in  the  case 
of  each  candidate  every  freeman  was  to  bring  in  a written 
ballot  which  signified  a vote  in  his  favor,  and  a blank  ballot 
which  was  equivalent  to  a black-ball,  and  he  who  had  more 
votes  than  black-balls  was  chosen. 

Into  the  details  of  this  constitution  I need  not  go,  but 
may  dismiss  it  with  a few  general  remarks. 

In  the  first  place,  it  was  the  first  written  constitution 
known  to  history  that  created  a government. 

Secondly,  it  makes  no  allusion  to  any  sovereign  beyond 
seas,  nor  to  any  source  of  authority  whatever  except  the 
three  towns  themselves. 

Thirdly,  it  created  a state  which  was  really  a tiny  federal 
republic,  and  it  recognized  the  principal  of  federal  equality 
by  equality  of  representation  among  the  towns,  while  at  the 
same  time  it  recognized  popular  sovereignty  by  electing  its 
governor  and  its  Upper  House  by  a plurality  vote. 

Fourthly,  let  me  repeat,  it  conferred  upon  the  General 
Court  only  such  powers  as  were  expressly  granted.  In 
these  peculiarities  we  may  see  how  largely  it  served  as  a 
precedent  for  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

But  it  was  not  only  in  the  league  of  the  three  river 
towns  that  the  principles  of  town  autonomy  and  federation 
were  asserted.  Let  us  turn  aside  for  a moment  and  consider 
some  of  the  circumstances  under  which  the  sister  colony  of 
New  Haven  was  founded.  The  headlong  overthrow  of  the 
Pequots  in  the  spring  of  1637  2-nd  the  pursuit  of  the  fugi- 
tive remnant  of  the  tribe  had  made  New  England  settlers 
acquainted  with  the  beautiful  shores  of  Long  Island  Sound. 
Just  at  that  time  a new  company  arrived  in  Boston  from 
England.  The  general  purpose  of  these  new-comers  was 
nearly  identical  with  that  of  the  magistrates  in  Boston. 


24 


They  desired  a theocratic  government  of  aristocratic  t3rpe  in 
which  the  clergy  and  magistrates  should  possess  the  chief 
share  of  power,  and  they  also,  like  the  Boston  clergy,  were 
unwilling  for  the  present  to  concede  a definite  code  of  laws. 
Why  then  did  not  this  new  party  remain  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Boston?  They  would  have  done  much  toward 
healing  that  complaint  of  poverty  in  men  of  which  John 
Cotton  spoke ; and  one  would  suppose  moreover  that  after 
having  recently  suffered  from  so  large  a secession  as  that 
which  founded  the  three  river  towns  of  Connecticut  the 
Boston  people  would  have  been  over-anxious  to  retain  these 
new-comers  in  their  neighborhood.  Nevertheless  it  was 
amicably  arranged  that  the  new  party,  of  which  John 
Davenport  and  Theophilus  Eaton  were  the  leaders,  should 
try  its  fortunes  on  the  coast  of  Long  Island  Sound.  Massa- 
chusetts colony  of  course  had  no  authority  to  restrain  them. 
If  they  chose  to  go  outside  the  limits  of  the  Massachusetts 
charter  and  thus  be  free  at  once  from  its  restrictions  and  its 
protection,  it  was  open  to  them  to  do  so.  What  could  have 
been  their  motive?  The  records  of  the  time  leave  us  in 
some  doubt,  but  I suspect  that  they  found  the  minority  in 
Massachusetts  too  troublesome.  There  was  a very  consider- 
able minority  which  disapproved  of  the  theocratic  policy, 
and  although  it  had  been  weakened  by  the  departure  of  the 
Connecticut  men,  yet  it  still  remained  troublesome  and  grew 
more  so  from  year  to  year  until  after  two  generations  it 
contributed  to  the  violent  overthrow  of  the  Massachusetts 
charter.  In  the  summer  of  1637  the  air  of  Boston  was 
dense  with  complaints  of  theological  and  political  strife,  and 
one  may  believe  that  the  autocratic  Davenport  preferred  to 
try  his  fortunes  in  a new  and  untried  direction.  Not  only 
was  the  Old  World  given  over  to  the  Man  of  Sin,  but  that 
uncomfortable  personage  had  even  allowed  his  claws  and 
tail  to  make  an  appearance  among  the  saints  of  Boston. 

For  such  reasons  doubtless  the  Davenport  party  came 


25 


into  the  Sound  and  chose  for  their  settlement  the  charming 
bay  of  Quinnipiac.  They  called  their  settlement  New 
Haven,  with  a double  meaning,  as  commemorating  old 
English  associations  and  as  an  earnest  of  the  spiritual  rest 
which  they  hoped  to  secure.  In  the  course  of  the  year  1638 
and  ’39  settlements  were  also  made  at  Milford  and  Guilford 
and  in  1640  at  Stamford.  Somewhat  later  the  towns  of 
Branford  and  Southold  on  Long  Island  were  added. 

Now  these  infant  towns  did  not  at  the  first  moment  form 
themselves  into  a commonwealth,  but  they  retained  each  its 
autonomy  hke  the  towns  of  ancient  Greece,  and  each  of 
these  independent  towns  was  little  else  than  an  independent 
congregation.  All  over  New  England  the  town  was  practi- 
cally equivalent  to  the  parish.  In  point  of  fact  it  was  the 
Enghsh  parish  brought  across  the  ocean  and  self-governing, 
without  any  subjection  to  a bishop.  But  nowhere  perhaps 
was  the  identification  of  church  and  state  in  the  affairs  of 
the  town  so  completely  identified  as  in  these  httle  communi- 
ties on  the  banks  of  the  Sound.  In  June  of  1639,  less  than 
half  a year  after  the  constitution  of  Connecticut,  the  plant- 
ers of  New  Haven  held  a meeting  in  Robert  Newman’s 
lately  finished  bam  and  agreed  upon  a constitution  for  New 
Haven.  Mr.  Davenport  began  by  preaching  a sermon  from 
the  text — “Wisdom  hath  builded  her  house;  she  hath  hewn 
out  her  seven  pillars.  ’ ’ After  the  sermon  six  fundamental 
orders  were  submitted  to  the  meeting  and  adopted  by  a 
show  of  hands.  The  general  purport  of  these  orders  was 
that  only  church  members  could  vote  and  hold  office.  Even 
in  that  gathering  of  saints  such  a rule  woiild  disfranchise 
many,  and  it  was  not  adopted  without  some  opposition. 
It  was  then  provided  that  all  the  freemen  (that  is,  church 
members)  should  choose  twelve  of  their  number  as  electors 
and  that  these  twelve  should  choose  the  seven  magistrates 
who  were  to  administer  the  affairs  of  the  settlement.  These 
magistrates  were  really  equivalent  to  select  men  ; they  were 


26 


known  as  pillars  of  the  church.  It  was  furthermore  agreed 
that  the  Holy  Scriptures  contain  perfect  rules  for  the  order- 
ing of  all  affairs  civil  and  domestic  as  well  as  ecclesiastical. 
So  far  was  this  principle  applied  that  New  Haven  refused  to 
have  trial  by  jury  because  no  such  thing  could  be  found  in 
the  Mosaic  law.  The  assembling  of  freemen  for  an  annual 
election  was  simply  the  meeting  of  church  members  to 
choose  the  twelve  electors  while  the  rest  of  the  people 
had  nothing  to  say.  It  was  therefore  as  far  as  possible 
from  the  system  adopted  by  the  three  river  towns.  The 
constitution  of  Connecticut  was  democratic,  that  of  New 
Haven  aristocratic.  Connecticut,  moreover,  at  its  begin- 
ning was  a federation  of  towns ; New  Haven  at  its  be- 
ginning was  simply  a group  of  towns  juxtaposed  but  not 
confederated. 

Nevertheless  circumstances  soon  drove  the  New  Haven 
towns  into  federation,  and  here  for  a moment  let  us  pause  to 
consider  how  federation  was  inevitably  involved  in  this 
whole  process  which  we  have  been  considering.  We  have 
seen  that  the  principal  reason  why  New  England  did  not 
develop  into  a single,  solid  state  like  Virginia  or  Pennsyl- 
vania, but  into  a congeries  of  scattered  communities,  was  to 
be  found  in  the  slight  but  obstinate  differences  between 
different  parties  of  settlers  on  questions  mainly  of  church 
polity,  sometimes  of  doctrine  ; and  we  must  remember  that 
the  isolation  of  these  communities  was  greater  than  we  can 
easily  realize,  because  our  minds  are  liable  to  be  confused 
by  the  consolidation  that  has  come  since.  There  were  three 
or  four  towns  on  the  Piscataqua  as  a beginning  for  New 
Hampshire ; there  were  ten  or  twelve  towns  about  Boston 
Harbor ; two  or  three  in  Plymouth  Colony  ; two  or  three 
more  on  Rhode  Island  besides  Roger  Williams’s  plantation 
at  Providence,  and  presently  Gorton’s  at  Warwick  ; then 
there  was  a lonely  fortress  at  Sa3^brook  ; and  lastly,  the 
federation  of  Connecticut  and  the  scattered  molecules  of 


27 


New  Haven.  The  first  result  of  so  much  dispersal  had 
been  a deadly  war  with  the  Indians,  and  although  the 
annihilation  of  the  Pequots  served  as  a dreadful  warning  to 
all  red  men,  yet  danger  was  everywhere  so  imminent  as  to 
make  some  kind  of  union  necessary  for  bringing  out  in  case 
of  need  the  military  strength  of  these  scattered  communi- 
ties. Thus  arose  the  famous  New  England  confederation  of 
1643  which  Massachusetts,  Plymouth,  Connecticut  and 
New  Haven  united  their  fortunes.  Now  when  the  question 
of  forming  this  federation  came  up.  New  Haven  could  not 
very  well  afford  to  be  left  out.  She  possessed  only  the  terri- 
tory which  she  had  bought  from  the  Indians,  while  Con- 
necticut, with  an  audacity  like  that  of  Old  World  empires, 
claimed  every  rood  of  land  the  occupants  of  which  had 
ever  paid  tribute  to  the  extinguished  Pequots.  She  was 
laying  one  finger  upon  the  Thames  river  and  another  upon 
the  Housatonic,  while  she  sent  parties  of  settlers  to  Fair- 
field  and  Stratford,  thus  curtailing  and  invading  New 
Haven’s  natural  limits.  “In  union  there  is  strength,”  and 
so  the  towns  of  the  New  Haven  colony  united  themselves 
into  a little  federal  republic. 

I need  not  pursue  this  subject,  for  I have  said  enough  to 
indicate  the  points  which  concern  us  today.  Let  me  only 
mention  one  interesting  feature  of  the  events  which  annexed 
aristocratic  New  Haven  to  her  democratic  neighbor.  When 
I say  aristocratic  New  Haven,  I am  not  thinking  of  dress  and 
furniture  and  worldly  riches,  yet  it  was  a matter  of  comment 
that  the  New  Haven  leaders  were  wealthy,  that  paneled 
wainscots  and  costly  rugs  and  curtains  were  seen  in  their 
houses,  when  there  was  as  yet  nothing  of  that  sort  to  be 
found  in  the  three  river  towns,  and  that  they  were  inclined 
to  plume  themselves  upon  possessing  the  visible  refinements 
of  life.  The  policy  of  their  theocracy  toward  the  British 
crown  was  very  bold,  like  that  of  Massachusetts,  but  it  was 
imprudent  inasmuch  as  they  were  far  from  having  the 


28 


strength  of  the  older  colony.  It  is  a thrilling  story  that  of 
the  hunt  for  the  regicides,  and  Davenport’s  defiant  sermon 
on  the  occasion.  It  was  magnificent,  but  it  was  not  diplo- 
macy. On  the  other  hand  the  policy  of  Connecticut  at  that 
time  was  shaped  by  a remarkable  man,  no  less  than  John 
Winthrop,  son  of  the  great  founder  of  Massachusetts,  a 
man  of  vast  accomplishments,  scientific  and  literary,  a 
fellow  of  the  Royal  Society.  Inheriting  much  of  his 
father’s  combination  of  audacity  with  velvet  tact,  he  knew 
at  once  how  to  maintain  the  rights  and  claims  of  Connecti- 
cut and  how  to  make  Charles  II.  think  him  the  best  fellow 
in  the  world.  We  have  seen  that  in  making  her  first  con- 
stitution Connecticut  did  not  so  much  as  allude  to  the  exis- 
tence of  a British  government,  but  in  the  stormy  times  of 
the  Restoration  that  sort  of  thing  would  no  longer  do.  So 
the  astute  Winthrop  sought  and  obtained  a royal  charter 
which  simply  gave  Connecticut  what  she  had  already, 
namely  the  government  which  she  had  formed  for  her- 
self, and  which  was  so  satisfactorily  republican  that  she 
did  not  need  to  revise  it  in  1776  but  lived  on  with  it  well 
into  the  nineteenth  century.  This  charter  defined  her  terri- 
tory in  such  a way  as  to  include  naughty  New  Haven, 
which  was  thus  summarily  annexed.  And  how  did  New 
Haven  receive  this  ? The  disfranchised  minority  hailed  the 
news  with  delight.  The  disgruntled  theocrats  in  great 
part  migrated  to  New  Jersey  and  the  venerable  Davenport 
went  to  end  his  days  in  Boston.  Between  New  Haven  and 
Boston  the  sympathy  had  always  been  strong.  The 
junction  with  Connecticut  was  greatly  facilitated  by  the 
exodus  of  malcontents  to  New  Jersey,  and  it  was  not  long 
before  the  whole  of  what  is  now  Connecticut  had  grown 
together  as  an  extensive  republic  composed  of  towns  whose 
union  presented  in  many  respects  a miniature  model  of  our 
present  great  federal  commonwealth. 

We  may  now  in  conclusion  point  to  the  part  which  Con- 


29 


necticut  played  in  the  formation  of  the  federal  constitution 
under  which  we  live.  You  will  remember  that  there  was 
strong  opposition  to  such  a constitution  in  most  of  the 
states.  Everywhere  there  was  a lurking  dread  of  what 
might  be  done  by  a new  and  untried  continental  power, 
possessing  powers  of  taxation  and  having  a jurisdiction 
beyond  and  in  some  respects  above  those  of  the  separate  thir- 
teen states.  You  will  remember  that  the  year  1786  was  one 
in  which  civil  war  was  threatened  in  many  quarters,  and 
something  approaching  civil  war  actually  existed  in  Massa- 
chusetts. The  opposition  between  North  and  South  was  fee- 
ble compared  to  what  it  afterward  became,  yet  there  was  real 
danger  that  the  Kentuckj^  settlements  would  secede  from  the 
Union  and  be  followed  by  the  southern  states.  The 
jealousy  between  large  and  small  states  was  more  bitter 
than  it  is  now  possible  for  us  to  realize.  War  seemed  not 
unlikely  between  New  York  and  New  Hampshire  and 
actually  imminent  between  New  York  and  her  two  neigh- 
bors, Connecticut  and  New  Jersey.  It  was  in  a solemn 
mood  that  our  statesmen  assembled  in  Philadelphia,  and 
the  first  question  to  be  settled,  one  that  must  be  settled 
before  any  further  work  could  be  done,  was  the  way  in 
which  power  was  to  be  shared  between  the  states  and  the 
general  government. 

It  was  agreed  that  there  should  be  two  houses  in  the 
federal  legislature,  and  Virginia,  whose  statesmen  led  by 
George  Washington  and  James  Madison  were  taking  the 
lead  in  the  constructive  work  of  the  moment,  insisted  that 
both  houses  should  represent  population.  To  this  the  large 
states  assented ; while  the  small  states,  led  b}'  New  Jersey, 
would  have  nothing  of  the  sort,  but  insisted  that  representa- 
tion in  the  federal  legislature  should  be  only  by  states. 
Such  an  arrangement  would  have  left  things  very  much  as 
they  were  under  the  old  federation.  It  would  have  left 
congress  a mere  diplomatic  body  representing  a league  of 


30 


sovereign  states.  If  such  were  to  be  the  outcome  of  the 
combination,  it  might  as  well  not  have  met. 

The  bitterness  and  fierceness  of  the  controversy  was 
extreme.  Gunning  Bedford  of  Delaware  exclaimed  to  the 
men  of  whom  James  Madison  was  the  leader,  “Gentle- 
men, I do  not  trust  you.  If  you  possess  the  power,  the 
abuse  of  it  could  not  be  checked  ; and  what  then  would 
prevent  you  from  exercising  it  to  our  destruction.  Sooner 
than  be  ruined,  there  are  foreign  powers  who  will  take  us 
by  the  hand.”  When  talk  of  this  sort  could  be  indulged 
in,  it  was  clear  that  the  situation  had  become  dangerous. 
The  convention  was  on  the  verge  of  breaking  up,  and  the 
members  were  thinking  of  going  home,  their  minds  clouded 
and  their  hearts  rent  at  the  imminency  of  civil  strife,  when 
a compromise  was  suggested  by  Oliver  BUsworth  of  Wind- 
sor, Roger  Sherman  of  New  Haven,  and  William  Samuel 
Johnson  of  Stratford, — three  immortal  names.  These  men 
represented  Connecticut,  the  state  which  for  a hundred  and 
fifty  years  had  been  familiar  with  the  harmonious  co-opera- 
tion of  the  federal  and  national  principles.  In  the  election 
of  her  governor  Connecticut  was  a little  nation ; in  the 
election  of  her  assembly  she  was  a little  confederation.  How- 
ever the  case  may  stand  under  the  altered  conditions  of  the 
present  time,  Connecticut  had  in  those  days  no  reason  to  be 
dissatisfied  with  the  working  of  her  government.  Her  dele- 
gates suggested  that  the  same  twofold  principle  should  be 
applied  on  a continental  scale  in  the  new  constitution;  let  the 
national  principle  prevail  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
and  the  federal  principle  in  the  Senate. 

This  happy  thought  was  greeted  with  approval  by  the 
wise  old  head  of  Franklin,  but  the  delegates  obstinately 
wrangled  over  it  until  when  the  question  of  equality  of  suf- 
frage in  the  senate  was  put  to  vote  the  compromise  went  to 
the  verge  of  defeat.  The  result  was  a tie.  Had  the  vote  of 
Georgia  been  given  in  the  negative,  it  would  have  defeated 


31 


the  compromise,  but  this  catastrophe  was  prevented  by  the 
youthful  Abraham  Baldwin,  a native  of  Guilford  and  lately 
a tutor  in  Yale  College,  who  had  recently  emigrated  to  Geor- 
gia. Baldwin  was  not  convinced  of  the  desirableness  of  the 
compromise,  but  he  felt  that  its  defeat  was  likely  to  bring 
about  that  worst  of  calamities,  the  breaking  up  of  the  con- 
vention. He  prevented  such  a calamity  by  voting  for  the 
compromise  contrary  to  his  colleague,  whereby  the  vote  of 
Georgia  was  divided  and  lost. 

Thus  it  was  that  at  one  of  the  most  critical  moments  of 
our  country’s  existence  the  sons  of  Connecticut  played  a de- 
cisive part  and  made  it  possible  for  the  framework  of  our 
national  government  to  be  completed.  When  we  consider 
this  noble  climax  and  the  memorable  beginnings  which 
led  up  to  it,  when  we  also  reflect  the  mighty  part  which 
federalism  is  unquestionably  destined  to  play  in  the  future, 
we  shall  be  convinced  that  there  is  no  state  in  our  Union 
whose  history  will  better  repay  careful  study  than  Connecti- 
cut. Surely  few  incidents  are  better  worth  turning  over  and 
over  and  surveying  from  all  possible  points  of  view  than  the 
framing  of  a little  confederation  of  river  towns  at  Hartford 
in  January,  1639. 


Photomount 

Pamphlet 

Binder 

Gaylord  Bros.,  Inc. 
Makers 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
PAT.  JAH  21,  1908 


BOSTON  COLLEGE 


3 903 


01119732  4 


/ y' 

BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  HEIGHTS 

CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 

Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  and  may  be 
renewed  for  the  same  period,  unless  reserved. 

Two  cents  a day  is  charged  for  each  book  kept 
overtime. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  ask  the 
Librarian  who  will  be  glad  to  help  you. 

The  borrower  is  responsible  for  books  drawn 
on  his  card  and  for  all  fines  accruing  on  the 
same. 


